[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ICRP 2 standard



Prof. Bo Lindell who is the recipient of the first Sievert award, presented

at international congress on radiation protection IRPA-9 in Vienna (April

1996), one of the most important paper on risk evaluation and

decision-making. The main point of his lecture was that there are no

acceptable risks only acceptable practices, and that communication with the

public needs to be a higher priority in the field of radiation protection.

Bo's paper, RISK EVALUATION AND DECISION MAKING, explains with admirable

competence many of our divergences. One point in the Bo's paper is Attention

to Attitudes, and he point out that there are a number of well known factor

that form our attitude and they influence our risk perception, but this view

may be to narrow since they influence our attitude to more than just the

risk,  and Bo explains the most important factor. Probably many of you have

attended that risk evaluation and decision making symposium and have the

Bo's paper, however if someone has not and is interested, it will be a

pleasure to send it.



Here again



Jose Julio Rozental

joseroze@netvision.net.il

Israel



----- Original Message -----

From: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>

To: Michael Stabin <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>

Cc: Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>;

<peter.thomas@health.gov.au>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 5:25 PM

Subject: Re: ICRP 2 standard





What about the 15 mrem/year EPA limit for groundwater, the 25 mrem/year

decommissioning limit (10 CFR 20, Subpart E), or the ZERO allowable

contamination limit for the free release of materials by a licensee (10 CFR

20,

Subpart K, as interpreted in NRC, HPPOS-221:  "The regulations applicable to

nuclear power reactor licensees do not provide for the release of materials

that

are known to be radioactively contaminated at any level...")?



I'm not saying that those who laid the groundwork for such unreasonable

public

concern did so "for the purpose of getting big bucks."  However, there was a

natural bias to think that radiation hazards are different from any other

hazards, even chemical carcinogens.   This guilty until proven innocent

approach

to radiation protection is where we screwed up. If we took that approach to

everything, we'd never get out of bed in the morning, and it was naive  to

not

anticipate the effect of such policies on the public.  I'm not questioning

the

integrity of these people, but those decisions were wrong.  If benzene, a

radiomimetic, can have a PEL, why can't radiation?   How did we decide that

we

should spend $1000 to avoid a man-rem (10 CFR 50, Appendix I; I've heard of

figures as high as $10000/man-rem.) when a significant fraction of our

population is denied access to basic health care?



I have probably benefited personally from these decisions.  As a colleague

once

stated:  "Radiations's been very very good to me!"  Yet I am not happy about

it.  It is ultimately demoralizing to devote your life to protecting people

from

imaginary hazards.  This, not academic funding is the reason for the "Human

Capital Crisis in Radiation Safety" (HPS Position Statement, August, 2001.)



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Let's look at the real problem, for a change.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



Michael Stabin wrote:



> >...

>

> Truthfulness is not the issue here, it's simply cautious (perhaps overly

> cautious) design, and it was not for the purpose of getting big bucks but

> for protecting workers and the public when uncertainties exist. Remember

> that the original push for lower limits (down from 15-50 rem per year to 5

> rem per year) was made by scientists worried about genetic effects. The

> scientific case for not worrying about this in humans (of course

maintaining

> a strict 5 rem/yr limit for occupationally exposed fruit flies) can easily

> be made, based on plentiful data. The suggested change from 5 rem/yr to 2

> rem/yr was due to somatic effects. I agree that there are two ways to see

> the data of BEIR V, but I don't agree that the recommendations for more

> restrictive limits were made for such trivial and self-serving reasons as

> you assert. If a convincing case can be made that this is too restrictive,

> to the scientific bodies (first), they will accept it, then that will be

> accepted by the regulatory bodies and then the public. The scientists who

> developed these recommendations were and are men and women of good

> character, this is evident in Lauriston Taylor's detailed historical

> accounts. The scoundrels in some of these activist political groups that

> have indeed lied to the public should be held accountable for this, but

your

> characterization of the scientific community is quite unfair.

>

> Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

> Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

> Vanderbilt University

> 1161 21st Avenue South

> Nashville, TN 37232-2675

> Phone (615) 322-3190

> Fax   (615) 322-3764

> e-mail  michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/